British justice

[algie]

Of course it was a conspiracy against him.How many times have undercover reporters etc tried to set him up?The courts made the correct decision(fairly as well) yet again

 

[Franks Wild Years]

What do you expect when you've said on many occasions that you support the BNP ?

If you'd said you rescued baby pandas from the traps of evil poachers I might have a different opinion of you. I'm from an immigrant background and I find the views of the BNP and anyone who supports them extremly insulting. Therefore I feel I have a right of freedom of speach to insult back.

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British justice

Not at all. I think justice was done because it could have been very easy just to have just taken the attitude that because he was BNP, he must have been guilty.
He was plainly INNOCENT OF THE CHARGE, and though he would seldom win an award for promoting racial harmony, that is not what my sentiments were concerned with.

No such thing as 'Innocent of the charge'. He was found 'Not Guilty'. Watch the clip and you'll see he is inciting racial hatred. For whatever reason, the Crown didn't persuade the jury.

As for your point about jury tampering, well you are just making a fool of yourself because you are unable to comprehend that there are people out there who can follow and understand how our justice system works.

No fool made here. All you've done here is tried to score and cheap point and failed. I was merely challenging the point Chez made that it was it can't be argued against the fact that because it was a 'Not Guilty' verdict that it represents a waste of time and money. Can you honestly say a jury has NEVER been nobbled? And I did say it was 'highly unlikely'. I myself am discounting it as a probablity, but that doesn't automatically follow that 'Not Guilty' verdicts are always a waste of effort.

Of course I can understand that there are people out there who can follow and understand how our justice system works. What a silly point to try and make.

 

[algie]

Wrong.

Innocent is not used in a court of law because it carries a moral charge (implication that the person is innocent of the charges raised against them). Not guilty simply means that the charges against him have not been proven to a satisfactory degree in order to achieve a guilty verdict.

So, he was not guilty. Not innocent.

So tell me about the phase


"your innocent untill proven guilty"

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Some would say the why 'The Law' treats you ? You are GUILTY,until proven INNOCENT.

 

[Questions]

What do you expect when you've said on many occasions that you support the BNP ?

If you'd said you rescued baby pandas from the traps of evil poachers I might have a different opinion of you. I'm from an immigrant background and I find the views of the BNP and anyone who supports them extremly insulting. Therefore I feel I have a right of freedom of speach to insult back.

I would not want you as a judge if I was on trial.

''I do not agree with his views so irrespective of whether he is guilty or not guilty on this specific charge I decree that the court must bring in a guilty verdict.''

because................................

''I have a ethnic background''

 

[macky]

The only **** is you for calling people names.Why bother?did i insult you

yes mate i agree with you
i was trying to think of a reply
people arent racist
but it does seem that if you are white english at the moment
you are getting a raw deal
i think today proves that people have had enough

 

[algie]

What do you expect when you've said on many occasions that you support the BNP ?

If you'd said you rescued baby pandas from the traps of evil poachers I might have a different opinion of you. I'm from an immigrant background and I find the views of the BNP and anyone who supports them extremly insulting. Therefore I feel I have a right of freedom of speach to insult back.

Tell me where i have mentioned immigrants in this thread?Tell me where i've been racist?I agree with some of there policies but not all.Don't make assumptions my friend.The right for freedom of speech doesn't mean you can throw personal insults does it?

 

[The Large One]

yes mate i agree with you
i was trying to think of a reply
people arent racist
but it does seem that if you are white english at the moment
you are getting a raw deal
i think today proves that people have had enough

 

[algie]

yes mate i agree with you
i was trying to think of a reply
people arent racist
but it does seem that if you are white english at the moment
you are getting a raw deal
i think today proves that people have had enough

Thank you

 

[Rookie]

Griffin was found not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a unamimous verdict of his peers on the jury.
Case closed he did not incite racial hatred, so quite how a few people on here who were not on that jury and therefore not party to the full facts of the case are able to say he was is beyond me.

 

[The Large One]

The only **** is you for calling people names.Why bother?did i insult you

One, you just did - even if someone else called you a **** first. You lost your high moral ground by calling him a **** back.

Two, you insulted me, by saying I was 'brainwashed with left-wing politics'. Now I'm a big boy, and can handle that sort of silliness, but as Christian, I am sure you are familiar with Jesus' concept of 'let those who are free of guilt casting the first stone...'

Sorry, but you walked into that one.

 

[The Large One]

Griffin was found not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a unamimous verdict of his peers on the jury.
Case closed he did not incite racial hatred, so quite how a few people on here who were not on that jury and therefore not party to the full facts of the case are able to say he was is beyond me.

Hmm, clearly.

 

[macky]

One, you just did - even if someone else called you a **** first. You lost your high moral ground by calling him a **** back.

Two, you insulted me, by saying I was 'brainwashed with left-wing politics'. Now I'm a big boy, and can handle that sort of silliness, but as Christian, I am sure you are familiar with Jesus' concept of 'let those who are free of guilt casting the first stone...'

Sorry.

if you are
hit then you are entitled
to hit back
f*** all that turn the other cheek shit
which is part of the problem people have benn turning the other cheek for to long
time for change i think

 

[algie]

One, you just did - even if someone else called you a **** first. You lost your high moral ground by calling him a **** back.

Two, you insulted me, by saying I was 'brainwashed with left-wing politics'. Now I'm a big boy, and can handle that sort of silliness, but as Christian, I am sure you are familiar with Jesus' concept of 'let those who are free of guilt casting the first stone...'

Sorry, but you walked into that one.

Really?If you say so

 

[Rookie]

Hmm, clearly.

i'm sorry your point...

 

[algie]

i'm sorry your point...

Don't think your get a decent reply to that mate.

 

[The Large One]

if you are
hit then you are entitled
to hit back
f*** all that turn the other cheek shit
which is part of the problem people have benn turning the other cheek for to long
time for change i think

He's a Christian. Are you encouraging him to go against Jesus' word?

 

[The Large One]

Don't think your get a decent reply to that mate.

Wrong. Again. And it's 'you'll' (a contraction of 'you will'), not 'your'.

quite how a few people on here who were not on that jury and therefore not party to the full facts of the case are able to say he was is beyond me.

Hmm, clearly - meaning 'Yes, it is clearly beyond you.'

 

[Dandyman]

If Griffin's is "innocent" because Muslims are not a racial group how is this twat guilty of a "racial" crime ?

I find his views vile and disgusting but I fail to see how they amount to inciting racial hatred:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,1944271,00.html

Man guilty of inciting race hate at protest


Vikram Dodd
Friday November 10, 2006
The Guardian


A man was yesterday convicted of inciting racial hatred after calling for the killing of British troops during a protest against cartoons held to be offensive to Islam. At a February rally outside the Danish embassy in London, Mizanur Rahman, 23, had said soldiers should be brought back from Iraq in body bags, and also called for September 11-style terrorist attacks against Europe.
A jury at the Old Bailey found him guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting words, or behaviour with intent to stir racial hatred. Jurors were deadlocked on a second charge of inciting murder. The crown indicated it would seek a retrial.

Along with Rahman, a website designer from Palmers Green in north London, 300 people protested over a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, published in a Danish newspaper and reprinted in European papers. His counsel, John Burton, told the jury it was not enough to be "offended, shocked and distressed" by what Rahman said: "It is a matter of whether a serious crime has taken place." He compared Rahman's remarks to those made from soapboxes at Speaker's Corner. During the short trial Rahman apparently apologised, saying: "I didn't think about what I was saying."

Labour MP Shahid Malik, who had called on police to act after the protest, said outside court following the verdict that "a free society ... does not give people the freedom to stir up racial hatred".

Opening the prosecution case, David Perry QC said Rahman had carried placards saying: "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam." Mr Perry told the jury the meaning was "clear and unambiguous".